SHANKAR RAO GOVINDRAO BHONSLE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are by the two accused persons convicted iii the same case (Trial No. 38 of 1961 in the Ujjain District ). It is worth mentioning that there are three more appeals by the appellant in No. 31 (Ranchhodlal) for similar offences committed by him in the same capacity, that is, that of the Sarpanch of the Mandal Panchayat Ujjain. All these five appeals had to be heard and disposed of at about the same time in view of their similarity and the overlapping of the background and certain points of defence. There has been some delay in their disposal because when they were partly heard in August and September 1983 it was found by me that it was impossible to understand the lenghty and involved Hindi judgments in two of the tour trials and the examination of the accused in all of them, without translations. This being ordered was done in course of a few months and the hearing was completed in March and April 1964.

(2.) THE appellant in Appeal No. 31 Ranchhodlal has been convicted under three counts, the most important being one under Section 409 I. P. C. of the criminal breach of trust in respact of a larger part of of a sum Rs. 7000/- withdrawn by him from the fund of the Mandal Pauchayat Ujjain in his capacity as the Sarpanch of the institution. For this he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to a fine of Rs. 1500/-with further rigorous imprisonment in default for one year. The second count under which he has been convicted is the use of two documents as receipts for two sums of money respectively of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 2100/-knowing or having reason to know that they are forgeries; accordingly under Section 487 read with Section 471, I. P. C. he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years. The third count is the labrication of accounts to cover up the breach of trust by fraudulent conversion of the said amounts; for this he has been convicted under Section 417a, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisoment for two years. All the substantive sentences are to run concurrently.

(3.) THE appellant in Appeal No. 29 has been convicted under Section 467 for the forgery of a receipt and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years.